Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

You are here

16:0377(61)AR - NTEU and Customs Service -- 1984 FLRAdec AR

[ v16 p377 ] 16:0377(61)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 61
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Union
and
U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE
Agency
Case No. 0-AR-521
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Ann Harmon Miller filed by the Agency under section 7122(a)
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The dispute in this matter arose when the Agency directed the
grievant, a Customs Inspector, to either terminate an alleged conflict
of interest, which allegedly existed because the grievant's wife worked
for a Customs brokerage firm, or face disciplinary action. The
Arbitrator found that the grievant's wife worked for the brokerage firm
in a clerical capacity; that she took no part in the firm's managerial
or supervisory decisions; that she was not empowered to transact
business with Customs; that she was not a licensed broker; and that
neither the grievant nor his wife had any financial interest in the
firm. The Arbitrator also noted that the Agency had determined in
another situation where a Customs Inspector's wife worked in a clerical
capacity for a broker that there was no conflict of interest and that
the Agency failed to show how that situation was different from the
instant dispute. The Arbitrator rejected the Agency's assertions that
the facts in this case presented either a direct conflict of interest or
the appearance of such a conflict. The Arbitrator concluded that the
Agency violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it
directed the grievant to terminate the alleged conflict or face
disciplinary action. As a remedy, the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to
rescind the directive.
In its exceptions, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator's award is
contrary to law and regulation. More specifically, the Agency contends
that the award is contrary to Executive Order 11222 and regulations
governing standards of conduct.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record before the Authority,
the Authority concludes that the Agency has failed to establish that the
award is contrary to law or regulation. Thus, E.O. 11222 and the
implementing regulations relied upon by the Agency simply prohibit
conduct by Federal employees which creates either a direct conflict of
interest or the appearance of such a conflict. It is clear that the
Arbitrator carefully considered the pertinent provisions and the
Agency's related arguments. In its exceptions, reiterating arguments
made before the Arbitrator, the Agency essentially asserts that the
Arbitrator erred in concluding that there was no appearance of a
conflict of interest. However, the assertions fail to establish that
the Arbitrator's award is contrary to E.O. 11222 or the implementing
regulations. Rather, the Agency's contentions constitute nothing more
than disagreement with the Arbitrator's findings of fact, with her
reasoning and conclusions resolving the merits of the issue before her,
and with her interpretation and application of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement. It is well-established that such assertions do
not provide a basis for finding an award deficient. E.g., Social and
Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare and
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 41, AFL-CIO, 12 FLRA
No. 59 (1983); National Association of Government Employees, Local
R4-96 and Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, 11 FLRA No. 116
(1983).
Accordingly, the Agency's exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington,
D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY